The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a big victory on Thursday, allowing for the expedited deportation of some asylum seekers, who won’t be allowed to argue their case to a federal judge.
In a 7-2 ruling written by Justice Alito (and included Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg in the majority), immigrants who fail their initial asylum screenings will be eligible for expedited removal, according to AP.
The ruling comes in the case of a Sri Lankan man who slipped into the US from Mexico. He was quickly arrested, but was unable to convince immigration officials that he would face danger if forced to return.
The high court reversed a lower-court ruling in favor of the man, Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, who was placed in expedited removal proceedings that prohibit people who fail initial interviews from asking federal courts for much help.
Since 2004, immigration officials have targeted for quick deportation undocumented immigrants who are picked up within 100 miles of the U.S. border and within 14 days of entering the country. The Trump administration is seeking to expand that authority so that people detained anywhere in the U.S. and up to two years after they got here could be quickly deported. –AP
The Trump administration has long argued that the immigration system is rife with abuse and inundated with claims that have no merit. This was reinforced by Thursday’s ruling, which notes that "In 2019, a grant of asylum followed a finding of credible fear just 15% of the time."
Dissenting were justices Sotomayor and Kagan, who argued that granting "functionally unreviewable" expedited removal proceedings "flouts over a century of this Court’s practice."
"Today’s decision handcuffs the Judiciary’s ability to perform its constitutional duty to safeguard individual liberty and dismantles a critical component of the separation of powers," wrote Sotomayor.
On Monday, the Trump administration published new rules which would make it far more difficult to gain asylum, which will take effect after a 30-day period for public comment.
James O’Keefe’s team of undercover journalists Project Veritas have released hidden camera footage of Facebook employees admitting to deliberate political bias, censorship of Trump supporters, as well as discrimination against conservative and white male employees.
Mayor Bill de Blasio’s New York City saw 28 shootings in 72 hours this past weekend. For all of last week, they were up 342 percent over the same week in 2019. In terms of minor crime, the city has seen a curious surge in people setting off illegal fireworks. How, then, does a leftist…
"We Rig The Game": Facebook Whistleblower Reveals Bias Against Conservatives In Latest Veritas Exposé Tyler Durden
Thu, 06/25/2020 – 11:25
A Facebook content moderator has come forward to reveal rampant bias against conservatives at the social media giant.
Ryan Hartwig, an Arizona-based Facebook content moderator for third-party contractor Cognizant, says he witnessed egregious double-standards both targeting conservatives or favoring liberals.
"I was seeing them interfering on a global level in elections. I saw a blatant exception that just targeted conservatives or favored liberals—and you know, we’re deleting on average 300 posts or actioning 300 posts a day," said Hartwig, adding "If you magnify that by however many content moderators there are on a global scale, that’s a lot of stuff that’s getting taken down."
Hartwig wore a hidden camera to document reviewing of content and office interactions. In an interview with Project Veritas CEO James O’Keefe, Hartwig said although he signed a confidentiality agreement, he could no longer ignore the suppression of Facebook content supporting President Donald Trump, Republican causes or the conservative agenda with a massive exception to the company’s public position on protecting political speech across the platform. –Project Veritas
"That was the tipping point. Knowing about what I knew about how they were giving exceptions for the policy, I knew that it was likely that it was happening elsewhere on a global scale," said Hartwig. "Just seeing such blatant bias from Facebook really bothered me."
Content Moderators Express Hostility to Trump, His Supporters
One of the moderators Hartwig recorded was Israel Amparan, who he said typifies the worldview of most of the content moderators he encountered.
“Trump supporters are f*cking crazy *ss *ssholes, that every other f*cking word out of their mouth is you know ‘Come take it,’ ‘Seal the border,’” said Amparan. “Come take it” refers to the “Come and Take It” slogan Texan colonists put on their flag after the Mexican government demanded they turn in their cannon.
Amparan said he targeted content by Trump supporters because it scared him.
“I hate government as much as the next f*cking person, but you’re not gonna catch me riding over the f*cking. It’s like impeachment. It’s like a PRAW. Trump called it a f*cking coup–and it’s like that should scare you more than anything.” A PRAW, or Python Reddit API Wrapper, is a Reddit program to allow user to more quickly and easily post on Facebook.
Hartwig also videotaped Steve Grimmett, who is a team lead at Facebook-Cognizant’s content review—and who said Trump supporters are in the same speech category as Hitler, under the Facebook policy on Dangerous Individuals and Organizations.
“One of my projects before now was, was hate,” Grimmett said. “I’ve spent quite a bit of time looking at pictures of hate organizations, Hitler, Nazis, MAGA, you know, Proud Boys, all that stuff all day long.” MAGA is the acronym for Trump’s 2016 slogan: Make America Great Again.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before Congress the only speech Facebook targets for deletion is speech advocating hate, violence and terrorism, but not political speech.
Facebook Waived Hate Speech Policies to Advance its Pro-Pride/LGBTQ Agenda
One example was when Facebook-Cognizant policy and training manager Shawn Browder told all the content moderators in Hartwig’s section for the 2018 Pride Month hate speech would be allowed to stay up if it was in support of the LGBTQ agenda.
Hartwig said Browder told the moderators to implement the special policy, which in the case of Pride Month allowed attacks on a single group of people, quoting Browder: “Hey, we’re making the exceptions for our policy to favor the, LGBT community.”
O’Keefe: Hate speech is allowed if it’s ‘intended to raise awareness for pride LGBTQ,’ so hate speech is allowed in some cases, but apparently not others?
Hartwig: Yeah.
According to a screenshot of the policy captured by Hartwig:
Anything that is a delete per our Hate Speech policies but is intended to raise awareness for Pride/LGBTQ. This may occur especially in terms of attacking straight white males.”
Hartwig also videotaped Steve Grimmett, who is a team lead at Facebook-Cognizant’s content review—and who said Trump supporters are in the same speech category as Hitler, under the Facebook policy on Dangerous Individuals and Organizations.
“One of my projects before now was, was hate,” Grimmett said. “I’ve spent quite a bit of time looking at pictures of hate organizations, Hitler, Nazis, MAGA, you know, Proud Boys, all that stuff all day long.” MAGA is the acronym for Trump’s 2016 slogan: Make America Great Again.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before Congress the only speech Facebook targets for deletion is speech advocating hate, violence and terrorism, but not political speech.
Hartwig also told O’Keefe he witnessed how Facebook carves out exceptions in its speech policies if the speech boosts its own political agenda.
Facebook Waived Hate Speech Policies to Advance its Pro-Pride/LGBTQ Agenda
One example was when Facebook-Cognizant policy and training manager Shawn Browder told all the content moderators in Hartwig’s section for the 2018 Pride Month hate speech would be allowed to stay up if it was in support of the LGBTQ agenda.
Hartwig said Browder told the moderators to implement the special policy, which in the case of Pride Month allowed attacks on a single group of people, quoting Browder: “Hey, we’re making the exceptions for our policy to favor the, LGBT community.”
O’Keefe: Hate speech is allowed if it’s ‘intended to raise awareness for pride LGBTQ,’ so hate speech is allowed in some cases, but apparently not others?
Hartwig: Yeah.
According to a screenshot of the policy captured by Hartwig:
“Anything that is a delete per our Hate Speech policies but is intended to raise awareness for Pride/LGBTQ. This may occur especially in terms of attacking straight white males.”
Example: “Straight white males are filth for not fighting more on behalf of LGBTQ.”
‘No one has the white man’s back anymore’
Hartwig also told O’Keefe he himself was targeted at work for being a white male. This cultural bias was documented in a previous Project Veritas undercover investigation, when a PV journalist recorded Leslie Brown, who was a human resources contractor for Google and who now works at a human resources executive at Facebook, talking about the ease of firing a white male without repercussions or any due diligence requirements.
Project Veritas Journalist: I mean, they were able to fire him without having to worry about discrimination.
Brown: Due diligence, right. Because he’s a white man. Yeah, white man. No problem. You can’t do it that easily if there are other issues.
Journalist: Oh, it’s easier when they’re-
Brown: White man.
Journalist: Yeah, no protected class.
Brown: No one has the white man’s back anymore.
O’Keefe said Project Veritas still targets Facebook and other social media giants for more investigations—and those investigations are propelled by insiders like Hartwig and the other Facebook insider Zach McElroy, who was featured in the first video released from this investigation into Facebook’s content moderation policies and practices.
On Wednesday, news broke that was so big that (at least as of this writing) both the New York Times and the Washington Post ignored it: Barr’s DOJ finally forced the FBI to release Comey’s debriefing of the January 5, 2017 meeting that led to the General Flynn persecution.
The notes, which Peter Strzok wrote based on a conversation with Comey, show Obama directing the FBI to investigate General Flynn using “the right people,” while Biden came up with the idea that Flynn should be prosecuted under the Logan Act, an old, unconstitutional law that is inapplicable to a national security advisor. As well as showing a White House conspiracy against the incoming administration, the notes also reveal that Susan Rice’s bizarre inauguration email to herself was false and that Biden lied to Americans about his involvement.
Although heavily redacted, the portion of the notes that the DOJ released to the public is unambiguous. In the Scribd document embedded below, the title that The Federalist gave to the one page document tells the whole story: “Peter Strzok’s Notes Confirm Obama Personally Ordered Hit on Michael Flynn.”
VP [Biden]: I’ve been on the intel cmte for ten years and I never
P [Obama]: Make sure you look at things + have the right people on it
P [Obama]: Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling transition team?
D [Director Comey]: Flynn –> Kislyak calls but appear legit
[illegible] Happy New Year. Yeah right
On the day Trump was inaugurated Susan Rice sent an email to herself purportedly documenting the same meeting. She claimed that Obama wanted to do everything “by the book,” and that he “stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective.” Rice also wrote that Comey stated he had some concerns about Flynn’s conversation with former Russian Ambassador Kislyak.
Rice’s CYA email clashes with Strzok’s notes. First, Obama was not concerned with doing things by the book. Instead, he was telling Comey that, in “unusual times” he should “look at things” and have “the right people on it.” Those are marching orders.
The phrase “the right people” also raises the possibility that Obama was not merely ensuring that a delicate project got proper staffing. Instead, it suggests he was making sure that a conspiracy stayed within a small group of trusted Deep State operatives.
Finally, contrary to Rice’s claim that Comey was concerned about the Flynn-Kislyak calls, Comey told Strzok that he had advised those present at the meeting that Flynn’s calls with Kislyak “appear legit.” If the calls appeared legitimate, on what authority did anyone, whether Obama, Comey, or Strzok, conclude that it would be appropriate to keep Flynn’s case open when the case officer wanted to close it? Unethical does not begin to describe this.
On top of all that, there’s also the fact that the Democrats’ presidential nominee – Joe Biden – played an active, if idiotic, role in what looks remarkably like a seditious conspiracy.
The notes reveal that Biden was the person who came up with the idea of a Logan Act prosecution. Actually, that makes sense. It would be Biden who would cite an 18th century, unconstitutional law that cannot apply to an incoming national security advisor. One has to wonder how Biden even thought of it. The best theory comes from Undercover Huber:
It’s noteworthy, too, that Biden appears incoherent. “I’ve been on the intel cmte for ten years and I never….” You’ve “never” what, Joe? It does seem as if, even then, Biden was incapable of completing his thoughts.
Finally, the notes establish that Biden lied about his role in the Flynn matter:
In sum, on Tuesday, Trump accused Obama of treason, and the usual quislings in the Republican Party got all flustered and rejected the charge. On Wednesday, we acquired evidence that Obama was up to his neck in initiating a secret attack without any basis against Trump’s incoming National Security Advisor, something sure to destabilize the incoming administration.
As it happens, the quislings were correct – what Obama did is not treason. However, it may well have been an illegal insurrection or seditious conspiracy. After all, it sure looks as if several people, including the former president and the current Democrat presidential candidate, worked together to overthrow the legally elected president of the United States.
On Wednesday, news broke that was so big that (at least as of this writing) both the New York Times and the Washington Post ignored it: Barr’s DOJ finally forced the FBI to release Comey’s debriefing of the January 5, 2017 meeting that led to the General Flynn persecution.
The notes, which Peter Strzok wrote based on a conversation with Comey, show Obama directing the FBI to investigate General Flynn using “the right people,” while Biden came up with the idea that Flynn should be prosecuted under the Logan Act, an old, unconstitutional law that is inapplicable to a national security advisor. As well as showing a White House conspiracy against the incoming administration, the notes also reveal that Susan Rice’s bizarre inauguration email to herself was false and that Biden lied to Americans about his involvement.
Although heavily redacted, the portion of the notes that the DOJ released to the public is unambiguous. In the Scribd document embedded below, the title that The Federalist gave to the one page document tells the whole story: “Peter Strzok’s Notes Confirm Obama Personally Ordered Hit on Michael Flynn.”
VP [Biden]: I’ve been on the intel cmte for ten years and I never
P [Obama]: Make sure you look at things + have the right people on it
P [Obama]: Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling transition team?
D [Director Comey]: Flynn –> Kislyak calls but appear legit
[illegible] Happy New Year. Yeah right
On the day Trump was inaugurated Susan Rice sent an email to herself purportedly documenting the same meeting. She claimed that Obama wanted to do everything “by the book,” and that he “stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective.” Rice also wrote that Comey stated he had some concerns about Flynn’s conversation with former Russian Ambassador Kislyak.
Rice’s CYA email clashes with Strzok’s notes. First, Obama was not concerned with doing things by the book. Instead, he was telling Comey that, in “unusual times” he should “look at things” and have “the right people on it.” Those are marching orders.
The phrase “the right people” also raises the possibility that Obama was not merely ensuring that a delicate project got proper staffing. Instead, it suggests he was making sure that a conspiracy stayed within a small group of trusted Deep State operatives.
Finally, contrary to Rice’s claim that Comey was concerned about the Flynn-Kislyak calls, Comey told Strzok that he had advised those present at the meeting that Flynn’s calls with Kislyak “appear legit.” If the calls appeared legitimate, on what authority did anyone, whether Obama, Comey, or Strzok, conclude that it would be appropriate to keep Flynn’s case open when the case officer wanted to close it? Unethical does not begin to describe this.
On top of all that, there’s also the fact that the Democrats’ presidential nominee – Joe Biden – played an active, if idiotic, role in what looks remarkably like a seditious conspiracy.
The notes reveal that Biden was the person who came up with the idea of a Logan Act prosecution. Actually, that makes sense. It would be Biden who would cite an 18th century, unconstitutional law that cannot apply to an incoming national security advisor. One has to wonder how Biden even thought of it. The best theory comes from Undercover Huber:
It’s noteworthy, too, that Biden appears incoherent. “I’ve been on the intel cmte for ten years and I never….” You’ve “never” what, Joe? It does seem as if, even then, Biden was incapable of completing his thoughts.
Finally, the notes establish that Biden lied about his role in the Flynn matter:
In sum, on Tuesday, Trump accused Obama of treason, and the usual quislings in the Republican Party got all flustered and rejected the charge. On Wednesday, we acquired evidence that Obama was up to his neck in initiating a secret attack without any basis against Trump’s incoming National Security Advisor, something sure to destabilize the incoming administration.
As it happens, the quislings were correct – what Obama did is not treason. However, it may well have been an illegal insurrection or seditious conspiracy. After all, it sure looks as if several people, including the former president and the current Democrat presidential candidate, worked together to overthrow the legally elected president of the United States.
Joe Biden’s cognitive decline appears to be so bad his campaign team left a flubbed line in a pre-recorded ad. Watch for yourself here:
As you can see, the ad opens with Biden tripping over his first line.
The scripted line, made apparent by the campaign’s own subtitles, is: “I am coming directly to you to ask a quick favor.”
Instead, Biden says “I’m coming directly to you for ask a quick favor.”
This 30-second ad is pre-recorded, and they still left the flub in.
What does that allow us to assume…
Well, it’s not as though Biden’s schedule is overwhelmed. He’s been hiding out in his basement for more than a month now, making very few appearances and traveling almost nowhere. So it’s not as if his team did not have time to record this until Biden got it right. So my guess is that they did try to get it right — that they did countless takes to get it right, but had to settle for this one because this was as good as it was going to get, which tells you a lot about how bad the 77-year-old candidate truly is.
Biden’s critics are not the only ones to notice this flub and to comprehend what it means…
There’s a reason why Biden is hiding out in his basement. Every time he pops his head out, something like this happens. Biden has to remain hidden, and when he’s not hidden, he needs to refer to notes and a teleprompter — even during interviews — or his mental decline will become even more apparent.
But as of right now, this strategy is working like gangbusters. If you believe the polls — and the national polls were only off by a single point in 2016 — Biden is positioned to win a landslide, to humiliate Trump in 2020.
Biden is not Hillary Clinton. Voters like Biden more than Hillary, they know Biden, and he’s just hiding out right now sitting on his ten-point national lead, running out the clock, and protecting his status as the “acceptable alternative” to a president with a 55 percent average disapproval rating.
Biden can’t hide in his basement or behind cue cards and notes and retakes during the debates. But at the same time, expectations are so low for his debate performance, if he manages to not drool all over himself and collapse to the floor, he can walk out a winner.
People can laugh all they want at Biden’s basement strategy, but as of right now it’s working, and as of right now, by ginning up these riots and over-blowing the coronavirus spike with fear porn, the media have so far managed to ensure the presidential campaign can’t get started — something they will continue to do straight through to November.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.
Nearly two-thirds of the money the Biden Cancer Initiative spent since its founding in 2017 went toward staff compensation and six-figure salaries for top executives. The group spent far less on efforts to eradicate cancer.
One of several nonprofits Joe Biden created following his tenure in the White House, the Biden Cancer Initiative paid top executives lavishly, with salaries comprising nearly 65 percent of its total expenditures. That is well above the 25 percent charity watchdogs recommend nonprofits spend on administrative overhead and fundraising costs combined.
The nonprofit raised and spent $4.8 million over its two years in operation, its 2017 and 2018tax forms show. Slightly more than $3 million of that amount went to salaries, compensation, and benefits. At the same time, the group spent just $1.7 million on all of its other expenses. A bulk of this cash—$740,000—was poured into conferences, conventions, and meetings. It did not cut a single grant to any other group or foundation during its two-year run.
An analysis of nonprofits by Charity Navigator, which rates charities for effectiveness, found that mid-to-large-sized nonprofits paid their chief executives an average salary of $126,000 per year—far less than what the Biden Cancer Initiative paid its president, Greg Simon, who pocketed $224,539 in 2017 and $429,850 in 2018. Charity Navigator’s primary criterion for rating charities is whether they "spend at least 75% of their expenses directly on their programs."
The Biden cancer group’s financial disclosures may raise new questions about whether the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee allowed associates to profit off their access to him. Before going on to receive six-figure salaries from the Biden Cancer Initiative, Simon and the initiative’s vice president, Danielle Carnival, previously worked for the Obama administration’s Cancer Moonshot program. Biden’s son Hunter received $50,000 a month to sit on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma despite an apparent lack of qualifications. James Biden, Joe Biden’s brother, joined a construction firm in 2010 that later won a $1.5 billion contract to build homes in Iraq while Biden oversaw Iraq policy. Biden’s presidential campaign has been plagued with questions about Hunter’s and James’s financial activities.
Simon was only one of several highly paid Biden Cancer Initiative executives. Carnival was also compensated handsomely, collecting a combined $391,897 in 2017 and 2018. Simon and Carnival were the only two individuals paid both years by the nonprofit. During its second year in operation, the initiative added others to its payroll, including director of communications Cecilia Arradaza (who was paid $171,012), director of engagement Lisa Simms Booth ($197,544), and director of science policy Catherine Young ($170,904).
Biden stepped away from the initiative and his other nonprofits shortly before entering the presidential race to avoid conflicts of interest. Many of the health companies that Biden touted during his time with the nonprofit have financial and regulatory interests with the federal government. Simon told the Associated Pressin 2019 that many of the group’s attempted partnerships with medical organizations were "not successful."
The Biden Cancer Initiative was launched to continue the agenda of the Cancer Moonshot program, which President Obama created toward the end of his second term in hopes of accelerating research in the field. Biden, whose son Beau died from the disease, led the program with Simon’s help.
The nonprofit operated primarily through indirect money pledges from 57 partnerships, which included drug and health insurance companies. The group also pushed for data sharing, patient support, and other medical initiatives.
The Biden campaign did not respond to a request for comment. Simon did not respond to inquiries on the Biden Cancer Initiative’s finances and what the group had ultimately achieved before ceasing its operations.
Appearing Wednesday on the Fox News Channel’s The Story with host Martha MacCallum, Greater New York Black Lives Matter president Hawk Newsome warned that if the United States “doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it.”
A partial transcript is as follows:
MARTHA MACCALLUM: People watch what you say in that video, that you now want to show legislation down people’s throats now that you have everyone’s attention and you’ve also said violence is sometimes necessary in these situations. What exactly is it that you hope to achieve through violence?
HAWK NEWSOME: Wow, it’s interesting that you would pose that question like that because this country is built upon violence. What was the American Revolution, what’s our diplomacy across the globe? We go in and we blow up countries and we replace their leaders with leaders who we like. So for any American to accuse us of being violent is extremely hypocritical.
[…]
MACCALLUM: The only reason why I posed that first question to you the way that I did is I watched you talking on a bunch of different interviews today and you said, “burn it down.” You said, “burn it down, it’s time.” That makes me think you want to burn it down.
HAWK NEWSOME: I said If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down the system and replace it. All right? And I could be speaking figuratively, I could be speaking literally. It’s a matter of interpretation. Let’s be very real and let’s observe the history of the 1960s. When black people were rioting, we have their highest growth and wealth, in property ownership. Think about the last few weeks. Since you started protesting there have been eight cops fired across the country. Remember you were telling us that there was Due Process?
That’s why the cop that choked Eric Gardner kept his job and kept receiving raises for five years. Anytime a cop hurt a woman, a child, our elders, there was always a call for due process. But the moment people start destroying property, now cops can be fired automatically. What is this country rewarding? What behavior is it listening to? Obviously not marching. But, when people get aggressive and they escalate their protests, cops get fired, now, you have police officers and Republican politicians talking about police reform. I don’t condone nor do I condemn rioting but I’m just telling what I observed.
Several federal and local Arizona officials praised President Donald Trump’s border wall for reducing undocumented immigrant crossings during his Tuesday visit to the state. “You’re the only president in my 23-year career that has actually come down to the border multiple times to look at — assess what actually needs to be done,” National Border…
President Donald Trump on Wednesday at the White House vowed to protect statues of Jesus Christ and statues of the Founding Fathers in the United States from leftist mobs seeking their destruction.
“They’re looking at Jesus Christ. They’re looking at George Washington. They’re looking Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson. Not going to happen,” Trump said. “Not going to happen as long as I’m here.”
Activist Shaun King demanded Monday that some statues of Jesus and his mother Mary be torn down because they were “a form of white supremacy.”
Trump spoke about statues and monuments during a joint press conference at the White House with Polish President Andrzej Duda.
Duda also weighed in on the controversy, noting that the statue of Polish-US hero Tadeusz Kościuszko in Lafayette Square was vandalized by leftist mobs.
“That was outrageous for a big number of Polish people,” Trump said.
The president previewed an executive order that would streamline and consolidate existing laws to protect monuments at the end of the week. Trump cited the Veterans’ Memorial Preservation Act that already allows for up to ten years in prison for attacking a monument to America’s veterans.
“Ten years is a long time to have fun one night,” he said.
Trump again said that the violent mobs appeared clueless about why they wanted the statues destroyed.
“I think many of the people that are knocking down these statues don’t even have any idea what the statue is, what it means, who it is,” Trump said.